Approval of MinutesMinutes from the July 2, 2009 meeting were reviewed. Motion by Judge Medd to approve the
minutes, seconded by Judge Mattson. Motion carried.

Update and Odyssey Implementation StatusJim Gienger gave a review of the Variance Report which shows the up-to-date budget and time
schedules. The Budget is 12.6 % under and the Schedule is 2.3% over or behind schedule (this is
equivalent to 3 days behind). Both of these numbers are well within the variance of the 20% that
ITD allows without requiring a corrective plan.

Sally Holewa explained that the bottom line totals are where the project will end up at if the cost
and schedule proceeds at the same rate.

Jim Gienger reported that he has been breaking down some of the cost events so that costs can be
predicted when they will be spent. On the hours spent on enhancements, we were allowed 5700
hours. We have used up to date 3800 hours. At this rate we should have approximately 500
hours left at end of the project. The 12.6% reflect those numbers and Jim felt these numbers
reflect reality.

System Enhancements Progress-- all original enhancements that were approved have been built,
delivered and reviewed. Tyler has started on 10 additional enhancements. About 6 or 8 of them
are patchable and will be delivered for the October 12th go-live date and the remaining will be
installed as soon as they become available, which should not be later than November.

System Configuration--Jim Gienger informed the committee that it is mostly completed. All the
Subject Matter Experts (clerks) will be in town next week. They will be looking at the
configuration again.

Data Conversion and Verification Process--the 4th data conversion push out of 5 is going to be
done today. The same group of people reviewing the configuration will be reviewing this data.
Each push has decreased in finding problems by ½ and it is expected to be close to zero now.

The focus is now on the financial parts of the conversion as we are still off on some totals. The
reason for the differences is known and the conversion team is getting close to understand why it
is happening. There are about 13,000 cases that have financial differences between UCIS and
Odyssey data. About 11,000 of those are old converted cases from PCSS and they lack data
elements that Odyssey is expecting. A programming script is being written to correct these cases.

The 5th data conversion push will be on September 5th. A final data conversion will be done the
week-end before go- live.

Interface Development Progress--Larry Zubke informed the committee that both Tyler and his
staff have been working on the interfaces and feel they are on track. The team will be giving an
executive demo to Sally, Jim Gienger, and Larry next week.

Some of the concerns are that none of the interfaces have been tested end-to-end. Some of the
enhancements that Tyler is still working on affect some of the interfaces. The staff will be
testing right up to the October go-live date. The Protection Order interface has Larry most
concerned. There are still some business process decisions to make and work to be done.

Justice Sandstrom inquired about prioritizing the interfaces and what needs to be done by the
October go-live date and what can be done at a later date. Larry explained that this has been
done. Some interfaces that were assigned low priority, such as the tax intercept interface and the
Voice IQ interface will be completed during the pilot phase because they are not needed earlier.

Donna Wunderlich inquired on the variance in costs between the different interfaces, especially
the Protection Order interface. Larry Zubke explained the thought process that went into the
Protection Order interface process and the many different methods that were evaluated before
choosing the current process. Jim Gienger and Larry Zubke explained that the Protection Order
interface has the highest priority and is the most complex.

Document Management Progress--Jim Gienger reviewed the three scanning options that were
given by Tyler and informed the group that the decision was made to proceed with Interactive
Scanning. Interactive Scanning will be done by the clerks as the events and the papers are filed.
Each clerk will do their scanning at their desk. This system will be the easiest and most cost
efficient.

The interactive scanning maintains the process similarly to what it is now and will eliminate any
bottle necks that could happen at batch scanners.

Judge Medd asked if a 50 page document would be scanned as it was given to the clerk. Larry
Zubke confirmed that the proposed scanners have 50 page document feeders and could feed this
sized document in about 2 minutes. They will be trained on how to redact at the same time.

Training--Jim Gienger reported that the training will be the last couple weeks of September. If
additional training needs are identified, the will be met in the two weeks prior to go-live.

IVR and IWR--Jim Gienger reported that IVR (interactive voice response) and IWR (interactive
web response) are integrated solutions provided by Sonant. The Operations Oversight Group has
reviewed Sonant's documents, designs, specifications, and call flow and returned them to Sonant
to begin work on the build.

E-Filing--Jim Gienger reported that e-filing will be introduced in early January,2010. This is to
give the pilot court a chance to work with and evaluate the case management system before any
complexities are added. Tyler Technologies is currently working with Wiznet to develop a
project plan for delivery and is confident that the solution will be delivered in January.

Rita Fischer inquired about the status of the issues associated with the sentencing document. Jim
Gienger replied that the integration team will be focusing heavily on the sentencing document
next week and have a decision on this by the end of the week. The scheduling order is another
area of concern that will be discussed next week. Tyler does have some solutions to help with
these issues. One of the solutions is a customized help feature that is often referred to as the
ALT-F1 solution. It allows the clerk to enter ALT- F1 on their keyboard and branch out to a
separate web page that would have a custom application specifically written for North Dakota
clerks. Writing this custom application will cost additional time and money if we decide to go
this route.

Judge Schmalenberger explained that Tyler Technologies new courtroom module may be another
solution for these issues. That module was demonstrated to the Operations Oversight Group
recently but will not be available until it is through pilot testing in Florida. It is likely that this
module will be available in phase II of our project.

Brandi Fagerland expressed her opinion that from her perspective as Large Project Oversight
Analyst that the ongoing development and management processes are being done well.

Judge Racek asked about the future plan was for handling restitution in Cass County. He
explained that the current process allows the Cass County State's Attorney to collect and release
the money, without updating the courts records. Therefore, the court's records are not accurate.
This is not just a Cass County issue as other state's attorneys also collect restitution. Rod Olson
explained that he will be meeting with the Cass County State's Attorney to discuss what changes
can be implemented. Justice Sandstrom asked for this issue to be placed on the high priority list.

In response to a question by Judge Medd, Larry Zubke confirmed that Odyssey uses Microsoft
Word 2007 as the default word processor. Sally Holewa reminded the committee that Learn Key
accounts have been set up so everyone can take Microsoft Word training if they are not familiar
with it.

Justice Sandstrom reviewed the licensing issues surrounding the requests from the municipal
courts in Valley City and Fargo to join the Odyssey system.

Sally Holewa explained the options that the Operation Oversight Committee discussed for
passing on or absorbing the costs of including additional municipal courts on the Odyssey
system. The issues stem from the fact that no other municipal courts have had to pay for coming
on the Odyssey system to-date and whether it would be fair to require new courts to pay to use
the system. The advantage to having as many municipal courts on the system would be the
ability to have a more complete picture of court data in the state, and it would be less confusing
to the public who don't always know the difference between municipal and district court. Justice
Sandstrom added that it would be an advantage to the clerks if there was a transfer between
courts as it would be a transfer within Odyssey and they would not have to re-enter the case.

Sally Holewa reported the projected cost would be $92,158 which includes the first year
maintenance.

Judge Racek asked if the plan is for them to use the electronic document side of the system the
way it was designed to be used and if we should require this for them to come onto Odyssey.
Discussion ensued on what documents need to be imaged by the municipal courts if they plan to
be on the Odyssey system. This will be covered in the Memorandum of Understanding we enter
into with the municipal courts.

Judge Racek moved that the Court Technology Committee recommend to the court that
the court assume the cost of the Odyssey license fees and the support and maintenance fees
for municipal courts wanting to go on the Odyssey system, and that municipal courts must
agree to follow system guidelines as established by the Supreme Court. Seconded by Judge
Mattson. Motion carried.

Follow-up Regarding Judge Narum's Questions on What information will be Visible on the
Website for Restricted CasesLarry Zubke explained that Judge Narum had asked for further information about how restricted
cases are displayed on the web. He explained that no restricted case information except a file
number will display on the public website. Jim Gienger confirmed that restricted cases will not
show attorney names unless they are part of a special case type such as post paternity cases where
we will have data available on the public website at some point. Justice Sandstrom recalled that
Judge Narum was looking for a way to notify attorneys via his handheld device. Jim Gienger
reported that Tyler Technologies is working on a solution to electronically notify parties that
would allow email and Blackberry notification to parties. According to Tyler Technologies this
is close to being available, and may be a feature we can add as earlier as the 2nd quarter release.

For the Good of the OrderJudge Medd commented that he is using the Blackberry phone and has found it to be helpful. .

Lee Ann Barnhardt informed the committee that the State has purchased a new PeopleSoft
module for tracking training and course credit hours. The court has agreed to test it and she will
report on it as the tests proceed.

Judge Medd suggested that the committee consider a future project to expand the use of ITV for
remote appearances. An example is on warrants such as when people do not pay their fines and
fees. Instead of the Sheriff transporting them a long distance we could use the ITV system to
appear remotely. This would be time and cost efficient for the Sheriff's Department and the
Courts. A question was raised regarding the existence of any restrictions or statutes on using this
procedure now. Justice Sandstrom said it was something to discuss further and Sally suggested
that it be presented to the Administrative Council.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

The next meeting is scheduled for 9:15 a.m. on October 16, 2009, in the Supreme Court Front
Conference Room.